He’s not just ignorant; he’s proud of it. You can tell by listening.

Yup, he really is.

He says “Somewhere in Oklahoma a tornado rolls through a junkyard … (and) magically produces a perfectly red shiny working Lamborghini. You would tell me I was nuts!” Yup. I would.

But he’s trying to say that’s the way evolution works. It isn’t. Not only that, but he’s using an old argument that’s been debunked a thousand times or more, and pretending it’s his own argument.

He knows nothing about either evolution or atheism, yet he thinks he can debunk atheism by talking about evolution. That’s worse than just ignorant or stupid. It’s both.

I don’t think he’s stupid because he believes in God. That just means he’s deluded. He’s both ignorant and stupid because he’s trying to disprove two unrelated things that he doesn’t even understand in three minutes.

Why do so many preachers do that? I honestly don’t know. If you think you want to disprove something, it just makes good sense to be sure you understand it first. You know, to maybe keep from making a fool of yourself like this guy did. And … well, you might even change your mind about disproving it if you really understood it.

I was talking to a preacher friend a few years ago, and the subject of evolution came up. He said (as near as I can remember his words), “I’ve heard a little about evolution from my church members. I probably understand it well enough.” Yeah, right! If I said I’d heard a little bit about Jesus from my fellow atheists, so I probably know all I need to know about him … do you think my preacher friend would buy that? No, I don’t either.

Well, this is one more guy who thinks atheism and evolution are the same thing and tries to disprove one indirectly by trying to disprove the other directly when he understands neither.

Not long ago I posted another video by a self-identified Muslim creationist whom I described with the words “willful, arrogant ignorance.” I’m guessing this guy’s a Christian, though he didn’t identify himself as such in the video. But it doesn’t really matter, because he’s no better. It’s very clear that he is also “willfully ignorant and arrogant.”

He says, “Evolution is not a science, never has and never will be. Why? Because it cannot fit between the parameters of parentheses of science.” If I didn’t know better than to use the words “parameters” and “parentheses” together like that, as if they meant something similar to each other, I’d quit trying to write.

More to the point, scientists themselves think evolution is science. I wonder why they’d think that if it doesn’t meet the criteria of science? And how would this ignoramus know better than they do? Don’t scientists themselves decide what the criteria of science are?

Well, why is evolution not science, according to him? Which “parameters and parentheses of science” does it not fit between? “For one simple reason,” he says. “Because it was never observed. That’s why it’s not science. That’s why it’s called the THEORY of evolution.” You can hear the capital letters in his voice.

Soooooo. Evolution has never been observed, and that’s why it’s not science. Sounds almost convincing, doesn’t it? But is it true?

Of course it’s not true!

All anybody has to do is read On the Origin of Species by Charles Darwin or Why Evolution Is True by Biology Professor Jerry Coyne or The Greatest Story Ever Told by Professor Emeritus Richard Dawkins. (They’re all available in our bookstore. See the menu at the top of every page.) If you’re really interested, read all three, as I have. You’ll learn that evolution is all around us and easy to observe.

He continues with his rant, “That’s why it’s called the THEORY of evolution. One man’s theory.” No, that’s not why. He doesn’t even understand what a scientific theory is. (We’ll discuss that soon.) Besides, “one man’s theory?” Recent surveys indicate that more than 99 percent of biologists believe the evidence supports it. It’s hardly “one man’s theory.” It’s one of the best supported theories in science, right up there with the theory of gravity and the germ theory of disease. (Does he think they haven’t been observed either? After all, we call them theories.)

Yes, evolution is science, just as much as physics, chemistry, and geology are science. But it has nothing to do with atheism. Atheism just means one doesn’t believe in God. Or any god. That’s all. It has absolutely nothing to do with what a person might or might not think about natural origins.

If you want to argue with intelligent people, you should be sure you understand what you’re arguing about first. And maybe even get a little help from somebody whose IQ is higher than his or her age. Just a friendly tip.

Please leave a comment. Tell me what you like or dislike about this post, but please be polite about it. Remember, this site is all "G Rated." Thank you. Cancel reply

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Archives

I am a lover of truth, which is found by a combination of common sense and the methods of science. These “methods of science” include observation, reasoning, testing the validity of one’s reasoning through experiments or further observations, communication with other informed people, and plenty of healthy skepticism. Without these things, there is no truth. There is only ignorance and superstition.